[PATCH RFC] of: add a basic memory driver

[mturquette@linaro.org (Mike Turquette)]

Quoting Emilio L?pez (2013-09-11 02:34:01)
> Hi Maxime,
> 
> El 11/09/13 04:54, Maxime Ripard escribi?:
> > Hi Emilio,
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:43:01PM -0300, Emilio L?pez wrote:
> >> This driver's only job is to claim and ensure that the necessary clock
> >> for memory operation on a DT-enabled machine remains enabled.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Emilio L?pez <emilio@elopez.com.ar>
> >> ---
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I am currently facing an issue with the clock setup: a critical but
> >> unclaimed clock gets disabled as a side effect of disabling one of its
> >> children. The clock setup looks something like this:
> >>
> >>        PLL
> >>         |
> >>   ------------
> >>   |          |
> >> DDR       Others
> >>              |
> >>            periph
> >>
> >> The PLL clock is marked with the CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED flag, so on a normal
> >> boot it remains on, even after the unused clocks cleanup code runs. The
> >> problem occurs when someone enables "periph" and then, later on, disables
> >> it: the framework starts disabling clocks upwards on the tree,
> >> eventually switching the PLL off (and that kills the machine, as the memory
> >> clock is shut down).
> >
> > That looks like a bug in the clock framework. I'd expect it to at least
> > behave in the same way when disabling the unused clocks at late startup
> > and when going up disabling some clocks' parent later on.
> 
> Yes, I kind of expected the same, and the flag description seems to 
> imply so too:
> 
>      #define CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED  BIT(3) /* do not gate even if unused */
> 
> >> There's two possible solutions I can think of:
> >>   1) add some extra checks on the framework to not turn off clocks marked
> >>      with such a flag on the non-explicit case (ie, when I'm disabling
> >>      some other clock)
> >>
> >>   2) create an actual user of the DDR clock, that way it won't get
> >>      disabled simply because it's being used.
> >>
> >> I considered 1) and implemented it, but the result was not pretty.
> >
> > What was not pretty about it?
> 
> It required adding an extra parameter to __clk_disable/__clk_unprepare 
> to keep track of the call's explicitness, and ignore the 
> disable/unprepare callback on the implicit case (when 
> __clk_disable/__clk_unprepare is called recursively) if the flag is set. 
> This also means adding a wrapping function to at least __clk_unprepare, 
> so as to to not break callers outside of the clk framework. Overall it 
> felt too hacky for something that could be properly handled by the 
> generic code if it had at least 1 user.
> 
> I would like to hear Mike's thoughts on this; maybe CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED is 
> not what we think it should be.

CLK_IGNORE_UNUSED was only meant to solve the issue of gating unclaimed
clocks during clk_disable_unused that we do not want to gate at that
point in time. To that end it is doing the right thing for your platform
and I don't see a bug here.

Your issue is that you have a normal clk_disable chain affecting the
clock. Always the right way to do this is to have a driver claim that
clock with clk_get and call clk_enable on it. That is how the clk API
works. This is what your 2) approach does and is probably The Right
Thing.

Alternatively a new flag could be added, CLK_ALWON. This flag should be
discussed but it could do a number of things:

1) any attempts to disable a clk with this flag set will always fail
silently (since clk_disable has void return type).

2) same as 1) above but the clock framework could additionally call
clk_enable on it after registering the clock with the CLK_ALWON flag set

Anyways I think a new flag like CLK_ALWON should only really exist to
solve this problem for clocks that do not have drivers in Linux. Since
you went to the trouble of writing a small driver then I think just
claiming the clock and enabling it there is the best solution.

Regards,
Mike

> 
> >> This patch is my take on 2). Please let me know what you think; all
> >> feedback is welcome :)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Emilio
> >>
> >>   drivers/of/Kconfig     |  6 ++++++
> >>   drivers/of/Makefile    |  1 +
> >>   drivers/of/of_memory.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>   3 files changed, 37 insertions(+)
> >>   create mode 100644 drivers/of/of_memory.c
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/of/Kconfig b/drivers/of/Kconfig
> >> index 9d2009a..f6c5e20 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/of/Kconfig
> >> +++ b/drivers/of/Kconfig
> >> @@ -80,4 +80,10 @@ config OF_RESERVED_MEM
> >>      help
> >>        Initialization code for DMA reserved memory
> >>
> >> +config OF_MEMORY
> >> +    depends on COMMON_CLK
> >> +    def_bool y
> >> +    help
> >> +      Simple memory initialization
> >> +
> >>   endmenu # OF
> >> diff --git a/drivers/of/Makefile b/drivers/of/Makefile
> >> index ed9660a..15f0167 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/of/Makefile
> >> +++ b/drivers/of/Makefile
> >> @@ -10,3 +10,4 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_OF_PCI)       += of_pci.o
> >>   obj-$(CONFIG_OF_PCI_IRQ)  += of_pci_irq.o
> >>   obj-$(CONFIG_OF_MTD)       += of_mtd.o
> >>   obj-$(CONFIG_OF_RESERVED_MEM) += of_reserved_mem.o
> >> +obj-$(CONFIG_OF_MEMORY) += of_memory.o
> >> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_memory.c b/drivers/of/of_memory.c
> >> new file mode 100644
> >> index 0000000..a833f7a
> >> --- /dev/null
> >> +++ b/drivers/of/of_memory.c
> >> @@ -0,0 +1,30 @@
> >> +/*
> >> + * Simple memory driver
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> +#include <linux/of.h>
> >> +#include <linux/clk.h>
> >> +
> >> +static int __init of_memory_enable(void)
> >> +{
> >> +    struct device_node *np;
> >> +    struct clk *clk;
> >> +
> >> +    np = of_find_node_by_path("/memory");
> >> +    if (!np) {
> >> +            pr_err("no /memory on DT!\n");
> >> +            return 0;
> >> +    }
> >> +
> >> +    clk = of_clk_get(np, 0);
> >> +    if (!IS_ERR(clk)) {
> >> +            clk_prepare_enable(clk);
> >> +            clk_put(clk);
> >> +    }
> >> +
> >> +    of_node_put(np);
> >> +
> >> +    return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +device_initcall(of_memory_enable);
> >
> > I like this idea as well. But imho, both 1 and 2 should be done. 2) is
> > only about memory devices, while 1) is much more generic.
> >
> > And fwiw, the Marvell Armada 370 is also in this case of having a
> > gatable clock for the DDR that could potentially be disabled (but is
> > not, since it has no other users than the DDR itself, and as such, no
> > one ever calls clk_disable on it).
> 
> Nice to know, thanks for the information :)
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Emilio